Xref: utzoo comp.society.futures:1955 comp.sys.mac.misc:2096
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!planchet.rutgers.edu!josh
From: josh@planchet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Intellectual Property (Re: polarization also piracy)
Message-ID: <Aug.9.13.25.46.1990.15655@planchet.rutgers.edu>
Date: 9 Aug 90 17:25:47 GMT
References: <1990Aug6.052300.2514@world.std.com> <4534@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Followup-To: comp.society.futures
Distribution: comp
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 41

In article <4534@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) writes:

> I think it is defintiely time to start seriously thinking about the
> worth of continuing to apply physical property rights to intellectual
> property. 

Brendan's set of questions is certainly one that needs asking, but
it needs the application of some understanding of economics in 
formulating the answer.

The major economic theory that is applicable here is the theory of 
the public good.  The basic idea is that something which must be
supplied to everyone or not at all (i.e., a public good) will be
drastically underproduced (that is, the rewards for producing it
will fall far short of the social benefit, and thus people will 
do other things for more reward producing less social benefit).

Property rights in intellectual accomplishments are a mechanism
that prevents their being public goods, increasing the amount
produced.  However, the way those rights are defined must take
account of the economic laws they are going to follow.

Example:  A patent is based on a bright idea, and specifically 
excludes basic plodding development work that could have been
done by any "competent practitioner of the art".  The notion of
patents is at odds with economic theory:  bright ideas are not
in short supply, and do not require substantial economic investment
for their production.  It is the result of the costly labor that
should be protected by a property right.

Alternate example:  A copyright, i.e. of a novel, does protect
the result of long hard work, and is thus properly accorded the
status of property.

Summary:  The definition of property rights in intellectual 
accomplishments must take cognizance of the economic realities
it is trying to address.  The intuitive concept of what should
be protected and what shouldn't be, as in the case of patents,
is often completely wrong.

--JoSH